Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:Providing less "points" for JD Advantage/ Other Professional unnecessarily plays favorites among schools. Is GULC worse than Texas Tech or LSU? I bet LSU and Tech have better full-time, long-term JD rates than GULC. (by the way, I'm not going to look this up, but even if the schools are close my point is made). There are cultural differences between schools. GULC is a good example, but there are also plenty of lower ranked schools which attract students with varied career goals.

Here is something you should look up. Look at GULC's numbers pre-crash for JD Preferred and Professional jobs.

"The JD-Advantaged and Professional jobs appear to be, on balance, less desirable than those requiring bar passage. They increase nearly three times in relative proportion as we move from T14 to Tier 1 to Tier 2. Many are likely compromise jobs—not as good as practicing law, but better than non-professional alternatives."

I'm aware of this data. It fits both your theory and my own, however. I've said that most law school students want JD Required work. You seem to imply that all or nearly all law school students want JD Required work. Either way, the shortage of JD Required work is going to effect your employment score, and your proposal to exclude non JD Required work from the USNEWS employment rate would, aggregately, provide some advantage for the purpose of "ranking" law schools.

My point is two-fold: One, the advantages gained by your proposal to better rank the schools would be real, but would be applied sloppily across the board, resulting in some schools being unfairly bolstered and others unfairly diminish because law schools often have different cultures with students with different career goals. Two, the practical policy result of your proposal will likely be to influence CSO across the country to steer all applicants away from JD Advantage or Other Professional jobs, and I don't think I need to explain why that would be a bad idea in this environment.

While your proposal would be an improvement over what we have, I still think there is a better way forward that is much, much easier. The simplest solution is to influence USNEWS to differentiate between long-term, full-time work and everything else. If they do this, and if they stop counting school funded as long-term, the new rankings formula in regards to employment would become a thousand times better already. This would more fair and less controversial, though arguably would create a (slightly) less precise employment ranking method for USNEWS magazine. But, is that what we really care about anyway?

Also, and this was said by someone else, maybe Spivey, but they should switch how they calculate class medians as well. Think about how law school admissions would be difference if USNEWS stated that medians would be calculated by the formula 25th + 75th / 2. No more Minn. Law with 166 median, 166 75th. These schools might actually admit people with different LSAT scores!

My point was actually just that people overstate the cultural aspects of Georgetown and many other schools when they say there are droves of people seeking and being happy with the JD Advantage jobs. If somebody is going to cite to Georgetown's numbers in one year, they need to explain why they look so drastically different in the immediately preceding years, or else explain why the school saw a sudden cultural shift.

It very well could be the case that students are just as happy (or close to it) with the JD Advantage jobs. It is more likely that these jobs are less desirable to this body of people because (a) I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever of a cultural shift and (b) of the strong connection between non-BPR jobs and lower rank.

If we're talking about a % to use in the rankings, I think the LT, FT % is a great place to start, fwiw. Also, your median suggestion is actually what the rule used to be. I don't recall why they changed it.

I agree with you. I'm sure people do overstate cultural differences at GULC, just like individual students at every school overstate their desire for X after being rejected at Y. It's cognitive dissonance-- I can't reach the fruit at the top branch so I'll just convince myself that I never wanted it in the first place. However, just the fact that there are some cultural differences between law schools, especially top-privates vs. large state schools, suggests that it would at least be partially unfair to create a ranking system based on "across the board," absolute assumptions about the types of careers that all students desire.

If you have time, I would be specifically interested in hearing your response to any effect your proposal my have on CSO offices..? I am actually proud that our CSO tells us how bad the legal market is, and encourages us to look at a wide range of options for our future careers. I'd hate for our dean to tell them to quit, and I bet he would if your proposal was accepted. ( on that note, don't be surprised if CU does better in the new rankings-- our (new-ish) dean has implemented school funded post bar internships (urr uhm, jobs), and he seems much more likely to game the rankings than the prior dean. )

Finally, thanks for the info on the old medians. I can't imagine why they switched, though surely they had some reason.

"Two, the practical policy result of your proposal will likely be to influence CSO across the country to steer all applicants away from JD Advantage or Other Professional jobs, and I don't think I need to explain why that would be a bad idea in this environment."

"Also let us keep in mind the practical repercussions of excluding JD Advantage and Other Professional from the employment rate. There is a great shortage of lucrative JD required work; we should be encouraging CSO to steer students in other directions, not discouraging them."

Basically, schools game rankings, school deans will tell CSO offices to discourage any student from accepting a JD Advantage or Other Professional Job if those two categories are excluded from the rankings. Considering the hunt for JD Required jobs is a zero sum game, this is bad news bears.

Okay, so you mean the suggestion that U.S. News use the ES as their metric.

I don't think CSO deans will steer them away from other long-term, full-time employment. I talk to CSO deans all around the country a whole lot, and they just want people to get jobs that will make them happy. Gaming happens, but at the margins and through institutional policies.

On balance, I think there's far more harm done by the rampant (speculative) JD-versatility argument than by the risk of gaming causing people to steer one way or another.

jenesaislaw wrote:Okay, so you mean the suggestion that U.S. News use the ES as their metric.

I don't think CSO deans will steer them away from other long-term, full-time employment. I talk to CSO deans all around the country a whole lot, and they just want people to get jobs that will make them happy. Gaming happens, but at the margins and through institutional policies.

On balance, I think there's far more harm done by the rampant (speculative) JD-versatility argument than by the risk of gaming causing people to steer one way or another.

Think about how law school admissions would be difference if USNEWS stated that medians would be calculated by the formula 25th + 75th / 2. No more Minn. Law with 166 median, 166 75th, These schools might actually admit people with different LSAT scores!

Huh? The median is a long-time-tested statistical data point, particularly when a distribution is not normal (think household income).. Half of the matriculants fall below the median and half are above (ignoring those at the median). What it shows for Minnesota is that a LOT of its matriculants (~ 25%) had a 166. The data show that at least a 166 is extremely important to Minn, whereas a lower "reported" score might give false hope.

Think about how law school admissions would be difference if USNEWS stated that medians would be calculated by the formula 25th + 75th / 2. No more Minn. Law with 166 median, 166 75th, These schools might actually admit people with different LSAT scores!

Huh? The median is a long-time-tested statistical data point, particularly when a distribution is not normal (think household income).. Half of the matriculants fall below the median and half are above (ignoring those at the median). What it shows for Minnesota is that a LOT of its matriculants (~ 25%) had a 166. The data show that at least a 166 is extremely important to Minn, whereas a lower "reported" score might give false hope.

Taking an average of the interquartiles is different.

Huh?

I know what median is but I don't know what you are talking about. Try this: think of the different admissions strategies between gaming for a 25th + 75th / 2 formula and the current system. Now, schools like Minn. spend a ton of their energy trying to attract students with exactly or at least a 166, and someone with a 165 ( which is, like, 1 or 2 flicks of the wrist on the LSAT ) has a very hard time getting admitted. Right now, someone who is slightly below both medians is nearly SOL-- probably rejected, maybe admitted at full tuition. The current system is arbitrary and weird-- it makes law schools look really pathetic too, in light of the alleged "whole file review."

Try this: think of the different admissions strategies between gaming for a 25th + 75th / 2 formula and the current system. Now, schools like Minn. spend a ton of their energy trying to attract students with exactly or at least a 166, and someone with a 165 ( which is, like, 1 or 2 flicks of the wrist on the LSAT ) has a very hard time getting admitted.

Sorry, I don't see the issue here. Minnesota is about as transparent as they can be. They want a 166 for at least half of their class, (for whatever their internal reason(s)), and they publish it up front. What's not to love? What's not to endorse?

Actually, if you think about it, under your recommendation, the data becomes much less transparent. Taking last year's numbers for UM: 167/157, which would be published by USNews as a 162. Thus, readers of the mag, would think that they are above the "average" and had a decent shot with say, a 164. But if Minn wants to hold its 166 median (for whatever internal reason(s)), they'll continue accepting the way that they had previously. That 164 is then in for a long wait.

Under today's reporting, that 164 knows that s/he is in the bottom half of last year's matriculants, and can plan accordingly.

Try this: think of the different admissions strategies between gaming for a 25th + 75th / 2 formula and the current system. Now, schools like Minn. spend a ton of their energy trying to attract students with exactly or at least a 166, and someone with a 165 ( which is, like, 1 or 2 flicks of the wrist on the LSAT ) has a very hard time getting admitted.

Sorry, I don't see the issue here. Minnesota is about as transparent as they can be. They want a 166 for at least half of their class, (for whatever their internal reason(s)), and they publish it up front. What's not to love? What's not to endorse?

Actually, if you think about it, under your recommendation, the data becomes much less transparent. Taking last year's numbers for UM: 167/157, which would be published by USNews as a 162. Thus, readers of the mag, would think that they are above the "average" and had a decent shot with say, a 164. But if Minn wants to hold its 166 median (for whatever internal reason(s)), they'll continue accepting the way that they had previously. That 164 is then in for a long wait.

Under today's reporting, that 164 knows that s/he is in the bottom half of last year's matriculants, and can plan accordingly.

Yeah none of this is really responsive to what I'm saying. Not sure you are getting it.

Also, the "internal reason" you speak of is no mystery. It is to game the USNEWS rankings.

Try this: think of the different admissions strategies between gaming for a 25th + 75th / 2 formula and the current system. Now, schools like Minn. spend a ton of their energy trying to attract students with exactly or at least a 166, and someone with a 165 ( which is, like, 1 or 2 flicks of the wrist on the LSAT ) has a very hard time getting admitted.

Sorry, I don't see the issue here. Minnesota is about as transparent as they can be. They want a 166 for at least half of their class, (for whatever their internal reason(s)), and they publish it up front. What's not to love? What's not to endorse?

Actually, if you think about it, under your recommendation, the data becomes much less transparent. Taking last year's numbers for UM: 167/157, which would be published by USNews as a 162. Thus, readers of the mag, would think that they are above the "average" and had a decent shot with say, a 164. But if Minn wants to hold its 166 median (for whatever internal reason(s)), they'll continue accepting the way that they had previously. That 164 is then in for a long wait.

Under today's reporting, that 164 knows that s/he is in the bottom half of last year's matriculants, and can plan accordingly.

Yeah none of this is really responsive to what I'm saying. Not sure you are getting it.

Also, the "internal reason" you speak of is no mystery. It is to game the USNEWS rankings.

Your proposed formula seems like it would be easier to game. You would really only have to focus on 25% of the applicants, to move up the 75th percentile. The assumption here is that you do not have a larger decrease in your 25th percentile when you do so. I think you do this by concentrating scholarship money on only applicants above whatever you believe the 75th percentile will be. This will advantage smaller schools (like MN) because they have more scholarship dollars per student (that affects the metric) than a larger school under this scheme. I don't think that this strategy would have a strongly negative effect on the 25th percentile figure because presumably those students would not likely be competing for scholarship money.

If the median is used, as it currently is, the school has to worry about 50% of the applicants.

Can you provide the link to the argument in favor of the average of the 75th and 25th percentiles? I did not see it in a quick scan of the posts.

Try this: think of the different admissions strategies between gaming for a 25th + 75th / 2 formula and the current system. Now, schools like Minn. spend a ton of their energy trying to attract students with exactly or at least a 166, and someone with a 165 ( which is, like, 1 or 2 flicks of the wrist on the LSAT ) has a very hard time getting admitted.

Sorry, I don't see the issue here. Minnesota is about as transparent as they can be. They want a 166 for at least half of their class, (for whatever their internal reason(s)), and they publish it up front. What's not to love? What's not to endorse?

Actually, if you think about it, under your recommendation, the data becomes much less transparent. Taking last year's numbers for UM: 167/157, which would be published by USNews as a 162. Thus, readers of the mag, would think that they are above the "average" and had a decent shot with say, a 164. But if Minn wants to hold its 166 median (for whatever internal reason(s)), they'll continue accepting the way that they had previously. That 164 is then in for a long wait.

Under today's reporting, that 164 knows that s/he is in the bottom half of last year's matriculants, and can plan accordingly.

Yeah none of this is really responsive to what I'm saying. Not sure you are getting it.

Also, the "internal reason" you speak of is no mystery. It is to game the USNEWS rankings.

Your proposed formula seems like it would be easier to game. You would really only have to focus on 25% of the applicants, to move up the 75th percentile. The assumption here is that you do not have a larger decrease in your 25th percentile when you do so. I think you do this by concentrating scholarship money on only applicants above whatever you believe the 75th percentile will be. This will advantage smaller schools (like MN) because they have more scholarship dollars per student (that affects the metric) than a larger school under this scheme. I don't think that this strategy would have a strongly negative effect on the 25th percentile figure because presumably those students would not likely be competing for scholarship money.

If the median is used, as it currently is, the school has to worry about 50% of the applicants.

Can you provide the link to the argument in favor of the average of the 75th and 25th percentiles? I did not see it in a quick scan of the posts.

If the formula is 25th + 75th / 2, then both the 25th quartile and the 75th quartile would be equally as important. Minn wouldn't only worry about recruiting 25% of its students, as you suggest. Think about how percentages work. Minn is technically concerned with 100% of the class because if you aren't bringing up the median you are bringing it down. Also, worrying only about the 75th quartile wouldn't correspondly bring up the 25th quartile, as you suggest. If the numbers you posted for Minn are correct for last year, there was a 10 point difference between the two quartiles. 157 25th, 167 median, 167 75th... Are you kidding me? That is so unfair for the students... If the Minn 25th was a 157, then at least 25% of the student at this "T20" had a 157 on their LSAT or worse. Pleebs at the bottom of the class with 155 LSATs are probably paying full tuition and getting pawned by at least half of the class who has a 167 or better. They're being scammed, and Minn should embarrassed of those quartiles.

Think of it this way: right now, Minn spends a massive amount of its recruitment on people with exactly a 167 on their LSAT. Not a 168, as those people will likely decide to go to T14 and it wouldn't be cost effective for Minn to buy them. Not a 166 either, because a 166 is actually going to bring down Minn's precious median, and a 166 is probably not going to go to Minn without a scholarship, since they can get money from ND, Wisco, Iowa, UW, Illonois, etc. So in the end, you have a law school who sorts out all of the 167's on LSAC and goes after them. Of course, a few students at Minn assuredly have a 166 or a 168, especially considering big $$$ students or reverse splitters, but those are the exception to the rule.

By using the new formula, Minn's input data would place them where they really belong in the rankings, with a 162 average for the LSAT. Much, much more importantly, making the switch would allow schools to recruit students not just with X on the LSAT, but with X plus or minus 3 on the LSAT, which would open up recruitment to thousands of more candidates. In this scenario, maybe Minn would start actually reading personal statements and not just auto-admiting every applicant with no criminal record and a 167 on the LSAT. Surely even Minn's admissions staff could get behind that idea. They, like pretty much every other school, would still try to game the rankings, but now they would have a USNEWS imposed interest in having high LSATS for 75% of the class instead of just 50% of the class, as the 25th quartile would need to be as high as possible. And again, it would be better for students. Minn Law would have a student body that was much more equally balanced-- there would be significantly less 155s competing against 167s, as Minn would assuredly raise its 25th up as high as possible.

For the record, Minn isn't by any stretch of the imagination the only school that does this, I just randomly picked them among many other schools. My school is guilty too-- 159 25th, 164 median, 166 75th. If you take some time to check out the various school websites, you'll see that the median is always very close to the 75th--- usually 1 point away--- whereas the 25th always lags 3-5 points down. I suppose Minn is an especially egregious offender, but the problem described here is very common.